In accordance with your policy of giving
reasons to victims of alleged crimes for not proceeding, please clarify the
following:

1. Why was there such a difference in the
length of the original investigation including the involvement of the
Procurator Fiscal and the length of the review including the involvement of the
Procurator Fiscal? These were respectively less than a month compared to
several years.

2.Why
was I informed that I was the only witness when I had already submitted the
names of other witnesses, for example Alison Norton and Valerie Spence whose
work in the cash section plainly ought to have been central to the
investigation? The Scottish Enterprise report confirmed my allegation that the
£187,069 had not been entered into the accounts by the cash section. Why? The
Scottish Enterprise report further confirmed my allegation that there had been
an instruction not to enter the money into the accounts ‘NO JOURNAL REQUIRED’.
That instruction had been acted upon. Also, the Scottish Enterprise report
stated that the cash in question had been transferred through three separate high
interest bank accounts within a week of being received while it was excluded
from the company financial ledger.

3. I alleged that I had been invited to enter
a conspiracy to commit fraud. My memorandum dated 17 August 1993 which I copied
to Strathclyde Police supports that. It provides documentary evidence of
incitement to support my witness statements given to Strathclyde Police. The
actions of the other accounts staff in excluding the money contrary to the
normal accounting routine indicate that they had accepted such an invitation.
In the period under investigation no other bank transaction had been excluded
from the accounts. Was this taken into consideration?

4. The rather obvious motive for excluding
the money from the accounts was to delay its reimbursement ultimately to UK
taxpayers in order to gain interest that otherwise would not be gained. The
police report included a section confirming that Enterprise Ayrshire was meant
to transfer direct receipts from Europe to Scottish Enterprise in the monthly
accounting period immediately following such receipt.

However, bank documents available for your
investigation show that the money in question was deposited again on 3 August
1993 in a high interest bank account while still excluded from the financial
ledger. Clearly, there was no intention to transfer the funds in the month
following its receipt. The transfer was only made after my memorandum objecting
to the irregularities. Was this taken into consideration?

5. A document that I
submitted to Strathclyde Police included independent confirmation of the importance
of the documentary evidence available to you, the originals of which were at
Enterprise Ayrshire. A letter dated 23 September 1993 from the Scottish Office
to Tom Woodbridge who was then the Head of Finance at Scottish Enterprise,
contained the following admissions:

‘.......I am afraid that, given the serious
nature of Mr Cairns’ allegations, the contents of the documents which Mr Cairns
took from Enterprise Ayrshire and the use which could be made of them by the
press, this is an issue which is not likely to go away quietly.’

The Scottish Office file disclosed to me on
27 February 2003 also contained copies of those documents. They were confirmed
to have matched documents sent separately to the Scottish Office by Scottish
Enterprise in a letter to me from the Scottish Office dated 17 February 1995,
also contained in that file, which stated:

‘The photocopies which you enclosed with your
letter of 19 December, which we had previously been sent by Scottish
Enterprise........’

This letter was written by the same person
who had referred above to ‘the serious nature of Mr Cairns’ allegations, the
contents of the documents which Mr Cairns took from Enterprise Ayrshire.....’

Were the contents of these documents taken
into consideration? They were also available from an independent source.

6. In my letter to you dated 11 February 2006
I pointed out:

‘According to Clare Connelly’s book Criminal Law Basics, W Green/ Sweet
& Maxwell, (2002), pages 30-32 ‘A conspiracy requires the intentional
agreement of two or more people to commit a crime (Maxwell v HM Advocate (1980). The mens rea of this offence is intention and the actus reus is agreement to commit a crime. Nothing else needs to be
done in pursuance of that agreement for a crime to have been committed,
however, it will be difficult to prove a conspiracy unless there is evidence
indicating that such an agreement was reached (Sayers v HM Advocate (1981)).......... In conspiracy cases it is
unlikely that a witness will be available who can speak to agreement being
reached between the accused. As a consequence, evidence of a conspiracy will be
inferred from the actions of the accused (West
v HM Advocate (1985))......’’

‘The actions of my superiors in Enterprise
Ayrshire as disclosed in the documentary evidence indicate that an agreement
was reached to falsify the bank balance and place this money on deposit for a
prolonged period to gain additional interest in breach of the operating
contract.’

As indicated above, documentary evidence
shows that the money was received in June 1993 and ought to have been
transferred to Scottish Enterprise in July 1993. However, the money was still
in a high interest bank account at Enterprise Ayrshire in the middle of August
1993 when I wrote my memorandum. The transfer was not made until three days
later, on 20 August 1993.

Were the actions of the alleged conspirators
taken into consideration in your determination? I went into considerable detail
on that matter in my letter dated 11 February 2006, concluding with:

‘The explanations in your letter that the
evidence in this particular case is only from one source and that there is no
corroboration of any of my allegations do not seem to be valid and I request
that these points be reviewed in the public interest......’

The actions of the alleged conspirators were revealed
in other sources of evidence in addition to what was contained in my witness
statements.

What were the intentions of those responsible
for instructing that there was ‘NO JOURNAL REQUIRED’ for the £187,069 and for
simultaneously transferring the cash into high interest bank accounts marked
‘STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL’ and ‘ALL ENQUIRIES TO ..... ANDREW
DOWNIENO-ONE ELSE’ where it was resting
in the name of my boss ‘C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE’?What possible suspicion could arise from
their furious reaction to my memorandum dated 17 August 1993?

I was swiftly removed from the premises of
Enterprise Ayrshire around lunchtime on 18 August. I never met or spoke to the
investigating accountant and she disregarded the evidence of my reconciliation
work and my communications on the matter in her report. In plain language, the
receipt of £187,069 was fraudulently excluded from the management accounts
until after I insisted upon its inclusion. This matter was ‘resolved’ by the
investigating accountant on 18 August according to a letter to the Scottish
Office from Tom Woodbridge the Head of Finance at Scottish Enterprise but in
reality he knew that it was ‘resolved’ by Enterprise Ayrshire correcting the
accounts in the morning of 18 August before the investigation began and by
sacking me shortly afterwards.

All these details were contained in the
documents available for investigation. But were the actions of the alleged
conspirators as revealed in these documents taken into consideration?

‘’As a general rule, in criminal proceedings
an essential fact cannot be proved by the testimony of one witness alone. Instead,
that witness’s testimony must be proved by corroborative evidence.
Corroboration means that the testimony should be supplemented, supported and
confirmed by independent evidence to the same effect from a second source. That
second source need not be another witness – it could, for example, be evidence
of a documentary nature.’

Was any evidence of a documentary nature
taken into consideration in this case? As I highlighted in my letter to you
dated 5 July 2008:

‘In your letter dated 17 December 2007 to Mr
Bill Aitken MSP you stated that the Crown’s position had not altered and
referred to your letter to me dated 8 April 2005, in which you had indicated
that since I was the only witness no amount of evidence from me would suffice.
An extract from that letter confirms:

‘The evidence of one witness, no matter how
credible or reliable, will not be sufficient. In this particular case the only
witness alleging that criminal conduct took place by either the police officers
or any personnel of Ayrshire Enterprise or the organisations that reviewed
Ayrshire Enterprise’s intromissions with these funds is a single source, namely
yourself.’

What about all the available documentary
evidence? What about all the other people who were involved? Were no witness
statements obtained from them?

I think what Lord McCluskey wrote a couple of
years ago in the Scotsman applies:

‘I am
dismayed by the failure of ministers to recognise the relevance and importance
of one of the fundamental principles underlying the rule of law in a mature
democracy, the principle that justice must be seen to be done’.

‘You will see from the file there has been a
great deal of recent correspondence from Mr Cairns.’

‘There are allegations against a number of
people including the Lord Advocate and Catherine Dyer and obviously I will now
need to report to Crown Office.’

‘From what I can see he’s not been classed as
a persistent correspondent in this organization but it may reach that stage.
I’d be grateful if you could go through this and draft a report that I can send
to the Crown Agent.’

‘I’d be really grateful if I could have the
draft back by Monday, 18 August as I’m keen to get this out of this office and
onto Crown Office.’

Internal
note to DCA dated 17/9

‘Mr Cairns is a persistent complainer who
clearly will not accept decisions he doesn’t like.’

‘The position in relation to the no pro of
the ‘fraud’ he alleges took place has been explained to him numerous times and
there is no point attempting to explain it again.’

‘I agree with the course suggested by the APF
– she should advise him the case is closed + no further correspondence will be
entered into. Are you content with this approach?’

‘Although the correspondence is
uncontroversial. I do not consider that we should provide Cairns with information
of this type.’

‘Other than emails, there are 2 internal
reports and associated notes which are of concern – one from Shona Barrie to
Lesley Thomson which details the background to Cairn’s (sic) request – it mostly deals with a legal analysis of his
original complaint, and thus does not fall into his present complaint, but
concludes with a paragraph indicating that any response would doubtless not
satisfy Mr Cairns, and that further correspondence would not be helpful.
Following this report, a report by Lesley Thomson was sent to you indicating
her recommendation that no further correspondence should be entered into. That
course of action was then followed, and Mr Cairns advised of this in the APF’s
letter of 10 October 2008.’

‘The Director of Operations has considered
your report and is content with the course of action suggested. Please advise
Mr Cairns that the case is closed and no further correspondence will be entered
into.’

Email
fromPA Deputy Head of Policy of Division to
G&S Area PA, dated 19 November 2008, Subject: MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE

‘We have been allocated an item of
Ministerial Correspondence from Mr Eddie Cairns and it appears to be a
complaint against the APF.’

‘We suspect from the content of the
correspondence that there is maybe a letter of complaint already lodged with
Glasgow PFO and is perhaps being dealt with on RESPOND.’

‘Can you advise please?’

‘Sue’s view is that if there is already
correspondence with Glasgow that the item allocated to us should be
re-allocated to Glasgow to tie up with existing correspondence.’

Email fromG&S Area PA to PA Deputy Head of Policy of Division, dated 20
November 2008, Subject: MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE

‘I understand Anne e-mailed you yesterday to
explain that Mr Cairns is a persistent complainer. We have no letter of
complaint as such just numerous letters in general from Mr Cairns. This was
reported to CO (copy report attached) and an instruction was received saying
that we were no longer to correspond with Mr Cairns. I also attach a copy of
our final letter to Mr Cairns.’

Contrary to the information about me
contained in these extracts there was no justification for treating me as a
persistent complainer when it was recognised that my letters were generally not
complaints and when I had in fact received no full responses to my letters
(contrary to what had been advised earlier), most of which were simply requests
for clarifications in any event.

I plainly stated in my letters that I was
requesting clarifications in accordance with the Crown Office policy.

Why was I treated differently from any other
requester under this policy? A reasonable suspicion of impropriety could arise
in the mind of an independent observer.

Separately, the Crown Office appears to have
breached the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the European Convention on
Human Rights by treating me in this unfair way on the basis of inaccurate
personal information.

There was no justification for referring to
me in derogatory terms and implying that since I had raised some complaints I
ought to be treated effectively as an enemy or at least as a timewaster. There was
no consideration given to the possibility that any of my complaints may in fact
have been valid.

Neither was there any mention of the fact
that the Lord Advocate’s Office had already received a copy of an Opinion from
the Legal Services Ombudsman issued in 2007 which concurred with advice given
to me on behalf of the Faculty of Advocates by Valerie Stacey, now Lady Stacey,
a judge at the Court of Session, that I had grounds for a complaint about the
Lord Advocate’s alleged misconduct in relation to the vexatious actions
petition.

Although Ms Thomson initially undertook to
provide a full response to my requests for clarifications, she never did.

A letter dated 25 July 2008 sent to me by Ms
C Horner on behalf of the Area Procurator Fiscal at Glasgow, Ms Lesley Thomson,
stated the following:

‘ENTERPRISE
AYRSHIRE AND SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE’

‘I acknowledge receipt of your letters dated
5, 17, 18, 19, and 21 July 2008 which are receiving attention. A full response
will be sent in due course.’

However, a letter dated 10 October 2008 sent
to me by the Area Procurator Fiscal at Glasgow, Ms Lesley Thomson, stated the
following:

‘ENTERPRISE
AYRSHIRE AND SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE’

‘I refer to all the correspondence from you
(dates undernoted). It has been considered but as there is nothing new referred
to in the correspondence, I can confirm that this case is now closed and no
further letters will be responded to.’

‘Undernote:’

‘Letter dated 5 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 17 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 18 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 19 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 21 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 26 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 27 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 28 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 28 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 28 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 31 July 2008’

‘Letter dated 1 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 1 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 2 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 3 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 4 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 6 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 7 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 14 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 14 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 15 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 16 August 2008’

‘Letter dated 23 September 2008’

‘Letter dated 25 September 2008’

Clearly, this dismissive response contained
no explanations or clarifications at all.

Therefore the impression given in extracts
from recent subject access disclosures and earlier subject access disclosures,
that I had already received numerous explanations but had remained dissatisfied
and unreasonably repeated the same requests over and over again, is absolutely
false.

Why was the widely promulgated policy of
providing explanations for not proceeding deliberately and unjustifiably disregarded
in my case?

In view of the very serious nature of the
above and its relevance to wider issues in this case I have copied this letter
to Strathclyde Police, to Scottish Enterprise, to the Scottish Government’s Ms
Stella Manzie, Director General Justice and Communities, to Audit Scotland, to
Mr Bob Doris MSP and to the Crown Office.

This is clearly a matter of public interest
that would tend to undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of
justice, justice not having been seen to be done.

This letter has
therefore been put into the public domain as is entirely appropriate in these
circumstances.

Yours faithfully,

Eddie Cairns.

Mr
E Cairns

72
Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW
G21 4HP

30
October 2011

Mrs Michelle Macleod

Head of Policy

The Crown Office and
Procurator Fiscal Service

29 Chambers Street

EDINBURGH EH1 1LB

Dear Mrs Macleod,

I refer to your letter dated 28 October 2011.

Your portrayal of my
stated concerns as ‘unreasonably persistent behaviour in terms of
section 4.5 of the Policy’, meaning your Customer Feedback Policy, is
undermined by the rather obvious unfair handling of my stated concerns.

This has been a persistent feature of the conduct of COPFS
employees, as detailed in my previous correspondence. Your response is only the
latest in a long line of disgraceful responses that blatantly flout the rule of
law, in particular the very important principle of fairness. My letter dated 1
October 2011 referred back to serious criminal allegations against you. The
fact that you have handled the COPFS response yourself could undoubtedly raise
a reasonable suspicion of impropriety in the mind of an independent observer.
Clearly you are not sufficiently impartial to respond formally to allegations
against yourself.

If my concerns are so lacking in substance what is the problem in
submitting them to Crown Counsel for independent assessment? Your repeated
refusal to do so further undermines your credibility.

In my letter to you dated
7June 2011 I included the following statements:

‘Since this allegation against you is a
serious allegation of criminality the correct procedure would be for the matter
to be submitted to Crown Counsel for assessment.’

‘If this is not going to happen I formally
request the reason for that decision under the COPFS’s published policy of
providing such reasons.’

Your repeated false assertion that my concerns had
already been addressed was already highlighted as
false in my letter dated 17 June 2011 in the following terms:

‘Your recent assertion that all these matters
have already been addressed is also undoubtedly false since you have
inconsistently stated that my allegations against COPFS employees did not
amount to conduct of a criminal nature therefore those allegations were not
addressed at all and your pretence that they were is simply a blatant lie.’

‘The truth is that the allegations certainly
did amount to conduct of a criminal nature, as can easily be verified with
reference to my previous correspondence, but you have dishonestly refuted that
and you have effectively entered into the existing conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice.’

Again, in my letter dated 9 July 2011 the
following relevant points were included:

‘New evidence that I have obtained since September 2008
indicates serious failures by Strathclyde Police in carrying out the original
investigation into my allegations of financial irregularities in Enterprise
Ayrshire in 1993 and in carrying out subsequent reviews of that investigation.’

‘........... Strathclyde Police’s relatively
recent assertions that all the documentary evidence submitted by me in recent
years had been available to the police in 1993 indicates that the police did
not handle that evidence properly because that evidence was not passed on to
the Procurator Fiscal according to clarifications provided to me.’

‘Clarifications obtained from the Procurator
Fiscal in 2005 included an assertion that I was the only witness to the alleged
financial irregularities in 1993.’

‘............ Documentary evidence available to the police
since 1993 according to the new evidence detailed above contains references to
Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Mr Andrew Downie and Ms Alison Norton.’

‘Since the Procurator Fiscal has maintained since 2005
that I was the only witness to the financial irregularities in 1993 the police
appear not to have passed on this evidence to the Procurator Fiscal.’

‘............ Therefore I request an effective,
independent, impartial and prompt investigation into these matters.’

‘This is
clearly a matter of grave concern to the general public who are currently
becoming acutely aware of such abject police failures.’

Similarly, in my letter to you dated 16 July
2011 I included the following:

‘Your assertion that my recent correspondence
raised no new substantive issues is simply a blatant lie.’

‘I was given the following very important
advice by the COPFS for the first time in a letter dated 15 April 2011:’

‘‘In response to your query as to why
allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not
been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made
by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’’

‘My subsequent letters have all raised the
very important new substantive issue that the COPFS appear to have dishonestly
refused to handle my allegations against COPFS employees properly and that this
has been perpetrated by COPFS employees falsely pretending that the criminal
allegations submitted were not criminal allegations. The general public already
know that the actions listed in my recent letters do amount to criminality.’

‘Your concurrence with the COPFS’s abject
failure to address my genuine concerns indicates that you have entered into the
existing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in this case.’

‘The COPFS’s angle that I was the only
witness to the original financial irregularities, which was insufficient for a
prosecution, remains an outstanding very significant falsehood.’

‘I did not make any entry in the accounts in
respect of the £187,069 of public money in question. I did not make any
arrangements for the transfers of the cash, over a period of a week, through
three separate bank accounts while the money was excluded from the balance
sheet.’

‘How was I the only witness? Were the
financial manipulations as revealed in the available documentary evidence
conjured up by Harry Potter? Or was it Paul Daniels?’

‘What about the names on the documents
recording the financial manipulations and my objections? The names that appear
are Andrew Downie, Gary Tracey, Janie Maxwell and Alison Norton.’

‘I also provided the name of Valery Spence,
who had been instructed by Gary Tracey not to enter the cash into the accounts
at the time of its receipt.’

‘In truth the COPFS’s reason given for not
proceeding has no basis in fact or in law. I was plainly not the only witness
and the COPFS’s disgraceful persistence in this obvious lie should be properly
investigated in the public interest and in the interests of justice.’

‘The issues detailed above would tend to
undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice, justice not
yet having been seen to be done in this case.’

Consequently I will of course be writing to
the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman about your failures.

In the event of the SPSO rejecting that I
will submit an application for a judicial review to the Court of Session.

If authority to proceed is refused I will add
that to my existing application to the European Court of Human Rights.

In that regard I believe that your threat of
further state action against me does not comply with your obligations where an
application to the European Court of Human Rights has already been submitted.

This is clearly a matter of public interest
that would tend to undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of
justice therefore this letter has been published on the internet, along with
your letter, as is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

I have also copied this letter to the Lord
Advocate, to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, to the Chief Constable of
Strathclyde Police, to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland and to
Mr Bob Doris MSP.

About Me

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE
This story highlights the dangers involved in being a whistleblower. It relates how trying to resist instructions to falsify accounts in any establishment organisation, in this case Scottish Enterprise, can swiftly lead to unemployment, destruction of your professional reputation, homelessness and bankruptcy. In the longer term it can result in grinding poverty, social isolation, mental health problems, being falsely classified by the government as a persistent correspondent and a vexatious litigant. In my case I attained the dubious honour of being listed on the Court of Session website as the number one vexatious litigant in Scotland for 11 years so far (as at September 2016).
In reality however none of my cases was vexatious.